Sorry, I should have been clearer.

GP comment posits a deterioration over the last 5 to 10 years.

1. That deterioration might be imaginary, due to recency bias. One would need to examine it carefully.

2. That recent deterioration is most certainly embedded within a massive improvement over a longer horizon.

>2. That recent deterioration is most certainly embedded within a massive improvement over a longer horizon.

The point was that political discussion became more common on this board in the last five years due to this "deterioration." So whether things are better now than 60 years ago isn't relevant to that point.

You're right.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

Adding willful seems to violate these. The first, maybe a stretch, as willful applies to the author and not the argument. But more the second as it does not assume good faith. I think the comment holds the same value without adding willful.